## Facts

- Police investigated the sale of illegal cable-television descrambling devices and obtained a warrant to search Robert Carratu’s residence.
- The warrant authorized seizure of records relating to the purchase and sale of illegal cable boxes and computers used in connection with that activity.
- Officers seized multiple computers and related items; a detective later examined the computers’ directory structures, folders, and files.
- During the examination, the detective found folders and materials plausibly connected to the cable-device investigation, including “Customers,” “DSS,” and web pages tied to cable-box sites.
- The detective also opened a folder labeled “Fake ID” and viewed image files depicting driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and other false identification documents; a driver’s-license image was also found in “My Documents” (timing relative to opening “Fake ID” was disputed).
- Carratu was indicted for offenses including criminal possession of forgery devices, relying substantially on the false-identification image files.
- Carratu moved to suppress, arguing the computer search exceeded the warrant’s scope and violated the Fourth Amendment; a suppression hearing was held.

## Issues

1. Whether Carratu had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer files sufficient to challenge the search.
2. Whether opening and examining files in a clearly labeled “Fake ID” folder exceeded the warrant’s particularized scope, which was directed to cable-box-related records and computers used in that activity.
3. Whether the plain-view doctrine justified seizure of the false-identification image files discovered during the computer examination.

## Decision

- The court held Carratu had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computers and therefore had standing to seek suppression.
- The court granted suppression of evidence derived from the “Fake ID” folder and related false-identification image files, finding the search exceeded the warrant’s scope.
- The court rejected reliance on the plain-view doctrine for the false-identification files because they were discovered only by opening a folder whose label indicated content unrelated to the warrant’s authorized objective.
- The court denied suppression as to items and computer materials reasonably connected to the cable-box investigation and within the warrant’s authorization.
- Disposition: motion to suppress granted in part and denied in part.

## Legal Principles

- A warrant authorizing seizure/search of computers and “records” tied to a specified offense limits officers to searching for evidence reasonably related to that offense; it does not permit a general exploratory review of all digital contents.
- In computer searches for documentary evidence, file and folder names and other contextual cues can constrain what may be opened as reasonably related to the warrant’s objective.
- Opening a clearly labeled folder whose label indicates content unrelated to the warrant’s targeted crime can exceed the warrant’s scope.
- The plain-view doctrine applies to digital evidence only when the incriminating character becomes apparent while officers are acting within the warrant’s permissible scope; it does not justify continuing to open unrelated files or folders once the search departs from the authorized objective.
- A computer owner generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a personal computer’s hard drive.

## Conclusion

The court treated a computer warrant aimed at cable-box records as imposing meaningful limits: officers could examine directories plausibly tied to the specified cable-device activity, but opening a clearly unrelated “Fake ID” folder exceeded the warrant and rendered the resulting false-identification image evidence inadmissible, with plain view unavailable to cure the overreach.


People v. Carratu, 194 Misc. 2d 595 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 2003)